We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Case C-658/11, European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2014] (not yet reported)
CFSP acts can be challenged before the Courtwhen the arguments relate to procedural points outside of the CFSP articles in Title V TEU. The Court can annul Council CFSP acts when the proper notification procedures to the Parliament stemming from Article 218 TFEU have not been followed. The effects of CFSP acts can remain in place, even after the Court annuls them, until such a time when the act has been replaced.
1 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 87.
2 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, paras 43–53.
3 Article 21(2)(a) – Article 21(2)(h) TEU.
4 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 89.
5 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 94.
6 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, paras 112 and 122.
7 Cremona, Marise and Thies, Anne, “Introduction,” in The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges, Modern Studies in European Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014), 1–11. p. 11.Google Scholar
8 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 154.
9 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 156.
10 Case C-658/11, AG Opinion, para 157.
11 Case C-658/11, Judgment, para 57.
12 Case C-658/11, Judgment, para 72.
13 Case C-658/11, Judgment, paras 78–79.
14 Case C-658/11, Judgment, para 80.
15 Case C-658/11, Judgment, paras 88–91.
16 The Parliament rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in July 2012, thereby preventing its furtherance within the Union. The Commission subsequently withdrew its request for an opinion of the Court of Justice on its compatibility with the Treaties and in particular, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on the grounds that without the consent of the Parliament, the agreement would go no further. Similarly, a member of the European Parliament initiated proceedings at the Court on the same agreement, which the Parliament was not allowed to intervene in. See T-301/10, Sophie in 't Veld v European Commission [2013] (not yet reported) ECLI:EU:T:2013:135.
17 Koutrakos, Panos, “Inter-Institutional Disputes and Treaty-Making,” European Law Review 39, no. 5 (2014): 599–600. p. 600.Google Scholar
18 Steve Peers, “The CJEU Ensures Basic Democratic and Judicial Accountability of the EU's Foreign Policy,” EU Law Analysis, June 24, 2014, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-cjeu-ensures-basic-democratic-and.html.
19 For example, see Hillion, Christophe, “A Powerless Court? The European Court of Justice and the Common Foreign and Security Policy,” in The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges, Modern Studies in European Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014), 47–72 Google Scholar. and Cardwell, Paul James, “On ‘Ring-Fencing’ the Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Legal Order of the European Union,” Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 64, no. 4 (2013): 443–63.Google Scholar
20 Engel, Annegret, “Delimiting Competences in the EU: CFSP versus AFSJ Legal Bases,” European Public Law 21, no. 1 (2015): 47–60. p. 59.Google Scholar
21 Ott, Andrea, “The Legal Bases for International Agreements Post Lisbon: Of Pirates and The Philippines,” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 21, no. 4 (2014): 739–52. p. 751.Google Scholar
22 Opinion 2/13 [2014] (not yet reported) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.
23 C-91/05 Commission v Council [2008] I-03651.
24 Biondi, Andrea and Bartolini, Silvia, “Recent Developments in Luxembourg: The Courts’ Activities in 2013,” European Public Law 20, no. 4 (2014): 611–30. p. 630.Google Scholar
25 Case C-263/14, European Parliament v Council of the European Union, pending.
